tv Charlie Rose PBS October 22, 2010 11:00am-12:00pm EST
rrz welcome to our program, robert reich, his book aftershock, the next economy and amica'future. conmerson't have e money, consumers are unwilling and not able to spend. and that's going to continue unless or until we change the structure of the economy. now when i talk about enlarging the pie for the middle class,aking sure there is a wider pool of shared prosperity, a lot of people s ohreich, are you a socialist, you are a redistributionist, you want to give to the rich, i say back, no, it would be better for people at the top to have a smaller share of rapidly growing economy that is growing because the middle class can really provide the aggregate demand it needs an to have a
large share as they do now of an economy that cannot get out of the gravitational pull of this great recession. >> rose: we continue o robert gottlieb whose book is called sarah, the life of sarah person hart. >> she spent the greater part of her caree touring everywhere. nine american tours. the last o after she had had her leg amputated during world war i where she weighs prop gndizing to t the americans to come not war on the allied side but she w everyrrx austlia, canada, onfriend of hers says that her mother once mentied mombasa to her and she said oh, ye played there. she was indefatigable. >> pirro: . >> rose: we conclude with dana pill bankhis book tears of theloud. glenn beck and the tea bagging ofmerica. >> he's second to'reilly on on fox ns. second or third behind rush limbaugh on radio t more successful in the passion of
his followers. so he's got maybe two to three million watching him each day on fox. he's got maybe 8, 10 million listening to him each week on the radio but what makes hidifferent is that as you said in the introduction he is a movement leader. he is not just a commentator and entertainer althoh he does both of thosehings very well, he actually see its himself now as sort of an unofficial leader of the tea party. >> rose: robert reich, robert gottlieb, and dana milbank en we continue.
additional funding provideby these funders: captioning sponsored by rose communications from our stuos in new york city, this is charlie rose. . >>ose:oberreicis here. is a prossor of public policy at the university of california berkeley. he was the secretary of labor under president clinton from 1993 until 1997. "time" magazine named him one of the ten most successf cabinet members-of-the 20th ctury he's also written 12 books the latest is aftershock, the next economy in america's future. it is as that wealth
disparity tween the rich and middle classead to both the great depression and the recent economic crisis. i'm pleased to have robert reich back on this program. welcome. >> good toe here, charlie. how are you. >> rose:o coming out of this economic crisis, how are we doing and what makes so diffict? >> wl, we're doing very badly relative to other recessions. not surprising because this isot likether recessions is is not simply a business cycle phenomenon. what i bieve and me and more people e coming around to see as wl i that there is some fundamental structure exchange happening in th amican economyhat catching up with us. and so we've got a major problem on the consumer side. nsumers are 70% of the economy. and consumers don't have the abilityor willingness to buy. that's a crisis on the aggregate demand side of the economy. and i don't see any easy or quick way we're going to come out. consumerhave to come out
from under a huge massive debt load. they're worried about their savings. they have toave re. ey c't use their homes as atm machines, basically collateral for loans easily as they cod in the early part of the cade. theyan't send any more people into work, in the '70s and '80s women marched into the paid workforce. they can't workonger hours if they have jobsecause many people are already holding down two or three jobs if they have wo. we have almost come to the end of the coping mechanis as i call them, that the middle class has used to prop up their purchasing power, even though the mean incomes of male workers have not increased adjusted for inflation in 3 years. >> rose: whacaused it? >> well, fundamentally, if you go back over the past 30 ars, we ow at globalization and technological ange did undermine all work that was routine work. people did the same thing over and over again.
either the work was sent abroad because cargo ships, container ships, satellite communication technologies eventually the internet allowed the proction process to be parceled out around the globe to wherever it could be done most cheaply or it wasutomated here at home. you used to have a lot of telephone operators and bank tellers andservice station attendants and even a lot of people along an assembly line. today's victories do not have a lot of people in an assely line. they have numericay corolled machine tools and robotics and a few technicians who sit behind computer consoles. so roune work wheer it is going abroad or whether it is being automated here at home has disappeared. and that means that the two categories of job that e left are number one, high skilled, well educated, well connected people, a lot of them financial-related jobs. or a larger and larger
number of jobs in the local service economy. retail, restaunt, hotel hospital and so on. >> were the policy moments in which the u.s. government could have tak sps t maintain our manufacturing base. >> well, i think there were pocy ments where the uned stes government uld have and suld have invested more and better in edation, in job training, early childhood education, in three public higher education, in research and development, in intra structure. the entire intr intr- infrastructure of the country is crumbling. we as a country could have and should have done more. and as we did in the 30 years after the second world war we had an income tax structure that was more progressive than we have to you but we didn't do any of
this, in the 70s, 80s, we privatized. >> the starting the reagan administration. >> and contiing right throh the clinton admistration. privatized, got marginal tax rate os on the wealthy down. we sort of succumbed to the supply side of trile down economics. nothing trickled down. >> but evidently the president believes in that because he wants to continue the tax cuts ofhe bus administration. >> yes, president obama has said he wanted -- >> for the middle ass. >> thais aery important distinction cause i think it very important to continue the tax cuts for the middle class because right now no class, as i have bee sing doe't have the wherewithal. that to the going to be the final solution for the middle class. they still are going to need additional help. but the top 2% do not nd addition continuatn ta cuts. they d't need the bush tax cuts continued. they sll and they will continue to spend a much smaller proportion of their
income than the 98% below them. there is no reason, particularly given the constrained budgets that we are all facing, that the top 2% should get essentially what next year would be a 36 billion dollar windfall that could be better used hiring teachersnd firefhters and lice officers who the public needs, and also who would pay, without would spend 100% ifnot more of their wages. >> here is what is intesting too,s you well know. if, in fact, theax cuts for those people making more than $250,000 a year, if those tax cuts are not continued, the tax rates for those people will revert back to what they were during the clinton administration. >> exactly. and the clinton-- clinton administration as you recall, asost people reca who were a life and sent yent of them. the clton ministration esided over the best economy this country has seen in livingemorin terms of 22 millionet new
jobs. >> thawas beuse the administration was a deficit hawk. >> no. >> in its policy. >> ihink it was primarily because of a combination of fiscal policies that focused on education and infrastructure, not as much as i think we should have, plus a federal reserve board that was und alan greenspan, understanding that the so-called natural rate of unemployment, that is the rate of unemployment beyond which or above which you create inflation, had dropped from 6% down to something around 4%. so alan greenspan was right to allow the economy to go faster. >> rose: butow we have, i mean the federal reserve, there is not much more it can do now s it. >> no, i think right now. >> rose: because rates have goneown to eectily 0. >> that's right. and ben bernanke and company, they want to do quantitative easing they call it. that is expanding the money supply even further. that, i fear, charlie, without effective fiscal policy helping demand,
th's likeush oa wet moodel. that means that all, you know, big companies and banks caget even more money for essentially zero cash. this is inviting a repeat of at we saw elier this decade when you had a lot of banks getting alot of money and turning around and lending it out to anybody who could stand up straight d many people witho uld not. >>ose:heres this argument too that they got all the money they feed but they're not spending it in part because they are reservations as where the questi is-- economy is goin >> tyare wise not to spend it in terms of demand to the being there. this allomes back again to a crisof aggregate demand. consumers don't have the money. consumers are unwilling and not able tospend. d that's going to continue unless or unt we change the structure of the economy. now when i talk about enlarging the pie for the middle class, making sure that there is a wider pool of shared prosperity, a lot of people say oh, reich, are you a socialist, a redistributionist, you want to te tohe rh and give the middle class and
lower middle class and i say back, no. it would be better for people at the top to have a smaller share of a rapidly growing economy that is growing because the middle cls can provide the aggregatedemand it needs than to have a large share as they do now of an economy at can to the get out of gravitational pull of th great ression. >> rose: you also believe that contrary to what many people, that this country is often said, for example that in china they have had too much saving andot enough spending. the reverse argument is here. not enough saving and too chpending. u don't acpt that. >> i think there is some truth to that but it not the answer to our problems. in other words, if we let the dollar drop and we also force the chinese to appreciate their currency, so that eventually everhinge boht from em cts a lo morto u and evythi thebought from us costs far less. >> rose: this is where the evasion would shop, wld change. >> tt's ght. thatoesn accompli a
eat al it may create a femore jobs here. but international trade is still on a relatively sml proportion o our natial economy. import its are at most 18% of our economy. exports are less than that. but more to the point, if everything we buy from abroad costs more, and that's the way we create jobs, that's just another way of creating jobs by getting poorer. yosee there iso sect to creating jobs by getting poorer. i could create if i were t czar of jobs coy create a lot of jobs by slashing everybody's income in half by having a lot of people work for a dollar a day. ere noecre to crting jobs by getting poor. the goal has got to be to create more jobs that are good jobs. >> rose: what would the keynesian gument be for this economy wheret is today? >> the keynesian argumen would be twofold. and we only remember one part of it. the first part of it is you have goto fulfill the gap
created by consumers pulling back, by having government be aind-of-pump primer for the economy but there is a second parof the keynesian argument that is almost forgotten today. keynes also looked at the distribution of income. and he said if the distribution of income gets toout whack, where to muchncomand wealth are going to the top, the middle class doesn't have the wherewithal to keep the econom >> rose: in essence that is the argument of th book. >> exactly. >> rose:ack to the administrationnd picies they took am you give them high marks for tarp, high marks for wh they didor general motors. you give tm high marks for those emergency measures that took place. >> n no, i think that the bailout of wall street was marred by a fundamental miscalculation. and that is the failure to demand wl stet as a condition for getting the bailout, that wall street, number one, help homeowners who are distressed. number two help small businesses. >> rose: to stop foreclosures. >> or at t very least-- .
>> rose:hey have done that, they seeto be mong in that direction. >> no they have not. a huge problem. >> rose: so you make nothi of these recent anuncents that bank of erica and others ha said we will stop the moratorium on foreclosures. >> yes, but that is only technical because until they clear up all of the problems with a signatore but there's a more fundamental issue with the foreclosures. what the banks should have done, and it's n clearer than ever,is they shod ha been forced to say all ght f i am a home owner who in in trouble i can deare rsonal baruptcy anmy he, not just my secretary home, not just my commercial real estate, which now can be part of commercial bankruptcy but my home, my primary residence can be part of commercial bankruptcy. what thawould do is arm meowners with more bargaining leverage with regard to their loan svice providers. >> rose: but the argument has be mad tha the tarp moy wa repaid. the the argument is made that generalotors is back on its feet. >> but two things, charlie.
number one main street if you want to include main street, the homeowners, small businesses and arage people t did not g baid out. they are still in deep, deep trouble. most americans don't feel that this recession is over. but number two, a lot of people say even if the tarp money is repaid, i as a homeowner all sinessperson or somebody who lost a job,i should get bailed out as well. i canventually repay whatever is given to me. i can eventuly do better. busiss cycle is sll a businessl cycle but nothing came my wa nothing trickled down. the view is that tarp, the bailout of wall streewas just another example of trickle down economics. wa strt executives are doing quite well, thank you. major traders are doing extraordinarily well once again. hedge fund managers are back on top but average working people sayit looks like the game is rigged. >> ros whawould you have done for them? >> would have nditioned
these loans on, again, helping ople who are derwer andn danger of faulting o thr me mortgage loans. helping small businesses providin- . >> rose: helpingmall busisses iwhat way? >> proding ler interest los to smallusinesses. i mean making sure that not only do banks get bailed out but there was a sufficient amount of lending to small business. >> rose: was credit available to small business today across the country? >> it is patchy. what we know, here is what we know. right now effective real interest rates are near zero. we know that the big banks e taking advantage of that. and so are big corporations. we also know that there is a very sharp aversion to rising among lending institutions. narally. because all of the regulators are saying don't take any risks. you took too many risks five years ago. dersndable. but here is the pblem. if people and small business that are
perfectly. we're perfectly normal acceptable credit risks are not getting under these circumstances loans, then you have a very lopsided economy dltimately a very lopsided recovy. big businesses, they are using their money for merges and acquisitions, buybacks of their stock. they areoing abroad. they are not building jobs. >> most of the jobs in america are created by small business, nobig business. >> i think that is right. >> y are saying there is no credit flowing to small business. >> i say the credit going to small businesss is very patchy and i verydifficult for a lot of small busisses to get, still because the lending institutions, the intermediaries and the regulators a sing. >> d't me baloans, n't ke anyisks and it is completely understandable that ty are doing that. >> you are sing that those people that argue that is because those businesses are unsure about the future because of regulation and financial, all of that is not true. >> it's not some of uncertainty. it's because they are not getting the loans and also because there is anne
adequate consumer demand for products. a lot of small businesses just like big businesses are not going to expand capacity and create more jobs unless they know there are consumers out there which again brings us full circle backo the fundamental paradox. the fundamental problem. and that is unless more american, the vast middle class working cssmerica hamoreoney and more certitude about their own financial futures, t are not going to turn around and buy. >> you make the argument that henry ford in a sse id his workers well because he wanted them to buy his cars. what is the equivalent of that today? >> henry foferd, by the way was accud by "the wall street journal" as being an economic criminal. many people called him a socialist because he paid his worker $5 a day ich was ree times the normal industrial wage. and he said to everybody who was calling him these names. said look, i'm a spart businessman because they are also consumers. they are goingo use that
moy, ce back and buy mol t rds. and he was right. i call that the basic bargn in the book. anwhat would that mean is we reexam whan happened between 1947 and 17 when the economy expanded much faster than it has been expanding over the last 30 years. and everybody gained. in fact the bottom 20% did even better than the top 20%. we had an economy working for everyone. partly because 30% of americans were unionized. partly because we had a high marginal income tax on high income earners. partly because we as a country invested substaially in education, public higher education. infrastructure. the national defense highway act. we as a country committed oursels dung tse 30 years to broad wide spread prosperity. we have not since. >> rose: during the eight years of the clinton administration what did they do to rebuild the infrastructure, what did you
do? >> well, the clinton ministration did make investments in infrastructure spending. they were not the kindf investments that, let me put this gently. when bill clinton ran for president, and many of us were workinging with him as advisors, we had and he had a very substantial plan for investment in education, in job training,in infrastructure spending withs than sounds exactly whak the obama administration said it wanted to do. >> yes, and we are still way, way behind on all of that. what happened to bill clinton ias u recall w are a deficit just like w have right now alan greenspan said to bill clinton indirectly, of course, look i am not going to lower short-term interest rates until you get some more control over the budget deficit. and that meant that a lot of those investment objectives could not be sufficiently met. in my view. my humble opinion. >> do you think barack obama's economic political philosophy is sickly different from bill
clinton's? >> no i don't. >> they're pretty much on the same page. >> very, very similar than then how has t president endeup with this reputation as a european social democrat or worse, in terms of perception by the right and by some in the business comnity? >> i don't know i a good question. because the obama administration has been as kind if not kinder to business and wall street as any previous administration i can remember. i mean the wall street bailt itselfshou have convinced e business community and wall street that obama and the obama administraon from very prusiness. andlso maintaining to the extent that they did. >> they would say we didn't do it because we were probusiness. we did it becse w were pro avdollapse? >> well, avoiding collapse is -- >> we did it for the country. >>ook t the busines and wall street havas much interest in maintaining an economy that is growing than
anybody else. i that i that it was the health care bismt i think that the health care is the onissue, rember that franklin d roosevelt could not make any headway on. roosevelt and trueman and eisenhower and john f. nnedy. >> and bill clinton. >> and bill clinton all of them tried to pov forward on national health care, on expaing health care. nobo succeeded until barack obama. and that has been from the point of the business community, something they ve objected to for 70, 80 years, charlie, this has been a point of convention-- contentionness. >> rose: i thoht what the president did in part was to get more people inside the tent than many administration before. the clinton administration alth-care program got off to a bad start because of the way it started it wasn't transparenand all those things. about you my impressi was in this ca, thepresident was able to get more people on board and then it got lost in the political process. >> well, i think that it got lostn the political
ocess partly because-- . >> rose: more ff sis on access than cost containment. >> not enough emphasis co containment and he allowed congress to take almost complete control of the over the process, to not keep iin t whus so there werepeci intests. thais wt theysaid abt the stimulus program too. do you come the table and say the obama admistration let congress write the stimus program. the obama administration let congress write the health-care reform package. >> i think there was a little bit too much willingness on the part of the obama administration for the stakt of getting stuff enacted. >> should they have done as much as they did duringhe first two years of it? >> if you don't do it in the first two years you can to the get it done. >> i think what the present could have done, it's easy to be a monday morning quarterback, charlie. here we are two years into the administration. but let me just say, what the president could have done was nnect the dots. cohave said health-care refo, financial reform, cap and trade, bailing the
economy out and getting the economy going, all of these are aspects of rebuilding the american middle class, for sustained recovery. >> they lost the narrative. >> the narrative was gone. >>e had a campaign narrative but never had a narrative for governing that would have connected the dot. >> that is the problem in washington. >> rose: an thereforfailed in explaing things. >> that is a remarkable paradox it is a real irony because you have a president who came in office as one of the best explainers in hiory. notonly an inspiringigure but somebody w cou connt thdots durinthe campai. but then got almost seemed to have got caught up in washington stin for the capilly. you ow, the tactica judgements that washington gets worried about rather than the large strategic narrative. >> rose: dow accept the argue that he is not connected to the issues in the way he articulates them? >> i think is very well
connted to the issues. frankly, i have not seen him since the just before he came to washington as president. i mean at that time, i was one of his advisors. and we sat around a table on a number ofccasions and lked about what eded to be done. and i was enormously impressed with his ability to not only connect the dots, and also lisn wh everybody had to say but to synthesize what everybody was advising him. >> rose: looking at the choices the president made at that time, now summer is gone. how summers is gone, herzog is gone, he has a chance to-- christine roemer is gone. should he look to a different time team? >> it's a good question and a difficult question. i think the team was a good team. i havenorms respect for the team he put together. through a very difficult, perius jrney ther now it depends somewhat on whether the republicans take over the hou.
and possibly even the senate. i thinkt's more likely the house. i saw and was there with bill clinton in that transfrition 1994 t 1995. the predent needs a different set of advisors. and really a different strategy forealing with a republican house. >> rose: great to see you. >> good to see you. >> rose: the book is aftershock, the next economy and america's future. robert reich. >> robert gottlieb is back, his publishing career spans 50 years. during that time has been editor in chief of simon and shoeseri al ford ca 23406 and "theew yorker" magazi. he is writer the new book sarah in the le of sar bernhard. he also known as-- was one of most famous actress in the worldment i'm pleased to have robert golieb back at is table. welcome. >> thanks. >> rose: what is this series about? >> it is about jewish lives whh is why its called jewish lives. >> rose: but yale initiated it. >> yes.
a very benign person, gave him a considerable amount of money to launch this series and pay for it generously so that they could hire sign on the writers it they wanted. >>hey signede you to do this >> they did. >> rose: and who else are they doing? >> almost everybody you can think of. >> rose: really it is that mammoth. >> iis gng to be very big, yeah. >> rose: did they have any particular reason other than the fact that you had a rich care that i have just outlined for having you do her? opinions yeah there was a reason. because of three or four years ago a wrote a very long piecebout h for "the neworker" review of books for whom i write a great deal. d various people thought i should, they thought expand it into a buy og feechlt you can't expand the piece into a biography so i went back into it all for another year and came out with this. >> rose: tell us about her. >> oh my god. >> rose: look athis picture, rather attracti
too. >> there was really nobody like her. and there has really never been anybody who made the impact on the world that she did. she started out-- . >> rose: impact onhe world. >> yerthe entire world. she spent the greater part of her career touring everywhere. nine american tours. e last one after sh h had her leg amputated during world war i where she was prop gand ice-- prop gandizing to get the americans to come into the war on the aied side. but she wa everywhe. australia, canada, one friend of hers says thater mother once mentioned mombasa to her and she said oh, yes, i played there. she wa indefigable. >> rose: and how good was she? >> well, everyone then thought she was unbeliebly great, perful, effecve. she had different styles depending on when in her reer you look her. shstardut as a kind of parcel of naturalism as opposed to what was
nsidered highly slized, mid late 19th century acting. as she went around the world, playing to people who are not french speakers, her acting became more stylized, more sturl so that people could understand it better. she sped up her speech. and her reputatn longer-- no long her to do with the beautiful poetry but with the effectiveness of her personality, of her coumes, of her jewel, of her hats, of her everything. plus the incredible, unceasing scandal of her ivate life which wenton well into her 50s. >> scandal? >> she was a create o scandal which she certainly liked and probably encouraged. >> rose: what kind of scandal. >> well, it ranged from sleeping i akoffin, very famously. she liked doing that. taking off in an air balloon
eraris whehe head of the theatre forbad her todo it. and to a succession of lovers which included every one from all her lding men, that was just standard, you know. >> rose: expected. that was part of the j r them. but t many veryfamous people including presumed relationship with the great et and novelist victo hugo who was 50 years older than she but she would say, so what? she was a foremidable person and an incredibly hard worker. >> rose: but a fire deroyed a lot of her records, didn't it. >> no one really knows where, what address she was born at or indeed what year she was born in. because when she wrote her memoirs e put in whashe wanted to put in. because truthfulness, facts, data were not her strong point. she lid a great ory. it wn't that sheas a liar so much, as an embroiderer. >> rose: you cl that a fab
list. >> a fab list. >> rose: a fabulist is one who fabricates her fe. >> who creates tables. rose: whorites what they think they would like to be or imagineo be or in their best moments are. >> or i thinpeople who enjoy hearing. for instance on her first trip to america, on a stormy sea, she tells us in her memoirs that she was walking on this tempestiest deck and a woman stumbled and almost fell to her death down some strs. and sara saved her. and is wan ask her, e said oh,o not an actress. i the widow o abraham lincoln and was an actor witht killed him annow u have saved my life whe all i want to do is join him ideath. well, course, you can't believe it. turns out much lat, if you read the records, that actually mrs. lincoln was on that ship, period. but what a good story. come on. let's go with it.
>> rose: the reputation as an actress though has endured. >> absoluty. she remas the phenomenon. hard to leave. ifou go on to ebay you see the number of things that still bear her name that are still being created. from the sarah bernhard piani to the dolls, to embroidery of her in h famous, from her famous art nouveau posters. she everywhere. >> rose: how much of her vark was determined by a bad relationship with her moer? >> well, i don't think it was her character, so much. but i think-- . >> rose: personality. >> her personality. >> rose: behavior. >> her sense of herself. her mother was a very pretty court i san who had fought heway up the rks of th kortisans. and she was much more fligmac th sarand di't wt he d sarah felt very, very strongly that her mother did not love her. not that she wasn't marnal
becae her two youer half siers,partular the rst of the, her mother absolutely worshipped and adored and made it completely clear that she preferred her sarah. nor s there a visible father. and there is lots of fun to be had in tracking the various people whom she proposed as the candidate for that honor. but she didn't know him. so she saw herself without parents, really and she spent a great deal of her life trying to winher mother's favor which she never really did. her mother didn't even think she was a very good actress. >> well, very-- that wl have a profound impact on you right there. >> it could, it could. >> if your mother is saying are you not very good. and that saul you want to be reasons you have forgotten are you my daughter an when dow something bad it reflects on me. >> rose: now what was this lifeline memo. she had a motto, what was it called. >> camiem. >> rose: whi mea. >> it means lit raltly even when, even so u can't translate it, no matter what
and that was, indeed, her nature. no matter what she was going to prevail. nothing could stop her. and nothing ever did stop her. she simply ush add side fficulties, opposition, et cera. and prevailed. >> rose: had one son maice. >> shead her son maurice when s was 20. there is also lot of specation abouwho his theras. >> re: and where does the speculation take us? >> it takes us to believe that he may well have been the son of a belgian prince, or he may not have be dependinon whose accoun you ad. ththins the iorta thing is he was despite all the lors, the friends, the colleagues, and she had a very rich relationship with the outside world, he was at the centre of her heart always the person from the moment he was born as i said when she was 20. he was the person she ced about the most. and all she asked of him in return for her endless
supportas tt he dress we. ldz i love you if you dress well. >> no, not-- she would love him anyway but that what she wanted that wa h reward >> rose: my one expectation of su to dress well. >> and he did. >> rose: she also was a political activist, you suggest. >> she was. >> rose: certainly on civil rights issues. >> well, she, yes, in america she spoke up for civil rights. t her great act of political impulse was during the dreyfu affair when her friends zola wrote his famous article. and according to her, she rushed to his house even perhaps not ite helped him write it but urged him to write it. >> re: she let you think that maybe she w involved. >> but she was involved. the effect that she supported him very and was hated for it by the right
wing. the dreyfus affr was the on timin their lives thatother and s deferred. because she had raised him to be a catholic aristocrat member of the jockey club. and so he was. and he had didn't speak to each other for a year. >> rose: the a famous hat. >> theat hat, yes. >> she liked oddarmes anthat was her design. >> rose: this is sarah as hamlet. >> that is sar as/ -- sarah as hlet andshe can be seen in the dua scene from hamlet on youtube there was a atch of film about a minute long in 1900. >> rose:ou just search. >> you go shall did -- there you will see her aling and she looks like a young guy. >> rose: there it is. >> she was 56 at the time. >> rose: this is mondo. >> this s indeed, one of the melodramatic vehicles, another he madfor her was tosca on whi the opera is made. >> rose: wll see that in a minute.
>> tsis cleopatra. >> that is. >> rose: and here is tosca. >> after she has done away. >> rose: and what is this? >> this is, this is in. >> this is one of her famous and bufl head pieces. i don't know if thats with one lalik or not but ma of her anments wer createdy lalique and other things jewellers at the time. >> r this is theodorea. >> anoth such when sheas a busiss an tee empss. >> rose: this looks like a eat%, sarah bernhard tribute day. >> those were created by the famous czech artist whom she discered and who created all her art. she found him and made him famous. >> rose: and this is a portra. >> that one of the most famous portraits in 19th century photography, the great felix nadar took a seriesf pictures of her when she was in letter late teens in the studio. >> rose: she looks very beautiful.
>> she was vy, very beautil. >> rose: what is it all about sort of the fact that we live in a world of ooks and i pads and kdls. >> not worried about all. i mean luckily i'm no longer having to cope with those problems. >> rose: economics of that is not your problem. >> i'm still editing a lot of bucks but not running a puishi house or dealin withhe publishing side. technology happens. and wedapt to it and what doesn't rk fades away or is rlacedy something better. i myself am a book person. i want to be in a bk store. i nt to be trolinghrou e aisles. >>ut if are u traveling wouldn't you like to have a kindl that you could put ten books on. >> like carrying seven books with me. >> rose: do you really. >> i do. what if you i get bored. what if i finish it too fast. most of the places i go are places where i have homes so i have clothes and things. >> rose: how many place does you have homes. >> well, new york, a place in the country apartment in paris. and a house in peopleee beach vz thatight.
and how much time dow spend in paris? >> a couple months a year. >> rose: dow really. >> uh-huh. >> rose: but not, inne stretch. >> a month and then another month. >> rose: when is the month. >> one is in november and one is usually april. >> rose: and why do you th? >> because one of the things i do is act as a dance critic for the new york observer. >> rose: oh, yes. >> and so i have toplan my retreats from eance world at moments when there isn't that much going on. >> ros you have kind of figured out a life of the mind, haveou? >> well, i figured out how to keep busy in what i hope is a wholesome way. >> rose: it is great. you have a couple monthsn paris. miami beach. >> well there i'm very closely connected to the miami city ballet which is one of the best companies in the america. >> rose: is it really? >> oh, y. >> rose: what is your connection? >> well, i sort of do everything when i'm there. >> rose: well w what? >> oh, i don't know how to begi i'm li a man of all work. >> rose: rlly? >> yeah. >> rose: i mean are you kind thereof as a kind of -- >> well, i do everything.
>> rose: wise peon. >> tt ceainly, alws wise and generally energetic althgh that's beginning to ase. >> re: spose i wou come to you nownd say knowg of your lo for ballet, and say you are only goingo s one baet, it is or. you can only see one. >> and that's it. >> rose: that's it. >> well there have been many great moments but for me the heart of ballet and really the heart of my whole way of thinking and being is ballanchine. >> rose: you wrote books about it. >> i d. and the city ballet today is not what it was. and many of us. >> rose: because there is no balance an chin. >> there was never going to be another ballanchi and there was never one before so the performances are very different in kind, sometimes they're good. sometimes there's noto good. bumaybe the most, the first really thrilling mont in my dance life was when i was 17 and went to the new york city center and there the company that became the new yk city
balletate their year did ballanchine's great work called symphony in c to a symphony by the young beza anwatching tt unfold chged life. >> it changed your life. >> it steered me in the direction of dance. >> it changed your le cause itgave you somethinthatou appreciated all your life within increing passion. >> that is right. >> and the passion is till there. the nce isn't always still ere. buthat is another story. >> robert gottlieb, sarah, thelife of sarah bnhard. dana milbank sheer, a veteran litical reporter d columni for "the shington pt," also the author of a new book on glenn beck tears of a clo. glenn beck and the tea bagging of america. over the past few years beck a cable television hostas become a leader in the modern conservative movement. in august he horted the restoring honor rally in washington d.c. wch
attracd hureds of thousands of attendees. i'm pleased to have dana milbank back on this program. welcome. >> thank you, charlie. grt to be here. >> rose: it is well-known because he is emotional and he does cry a fair amount. >> uh-huh. rose: whadoes he sa about that >> y know, these are actual tears but they are actually caused by putting victs men thol under the eyes. there was a film done for one of the glossy magazines. so clearly whether or not these are genuine tears, beck knows that he can use them to his advantage. and he didn't do it a whole lot when he was a mning dj on the radio. >> rose: let's tell that story. so he grew up >> it's a fasnati sto, lo or hate glenn beck. never went to college. beme, was a teenage if he non broadcasting. was part of the morning zoo hong around the country here andhere. but by his own-- . >> rose: theres also he fell ilove with radio, rly on. >>h-hu soluly loved ra and absolutely loved entertainment. he was a magician z that
sort of thing. and he pursued this radio career rather than the typical route of going to college. >> rose:ut it was an up and down career. >> well, it was. and he says that's because of his addictions. he speaks very freely about cocaine addiction, drinking gallons of jack daniels. so he said prey much everything he made at love money very young and he says most of it went up his nose and this went on for, you know, 15 years or so. >> rose: and so how did he conquer that? >> well, this is the sto, the transformationf glenn ck. he had acally kept moving down market because of his problems. he was in new haven, conneccut. >> re: doing morning zoo and those kinds of programs. >> the journeymen hopping around so he hit bottom and was in new haven. he gave up the alcohol, after veryifficult and at about the same time met a woman. she say-- met a woman, she
said i won't marry you unless we have a religion. they went church shopping and beck is telling just settled on the mormon church. not because either of them was morehoun a friend had suggted it. and his kids liked it. but tsecom t central focus of the bk nartive. and what is the impact of that on the narrative? >> everying changes. you know he talks almost likein miraculous tms. he had this baptism. and the next day in his telling, he hears from this agent and suddenly his career takes off. if you actually look at the factof it, it didn't occur exactly in that same miraculous fashion. but it was, it coincided wi beck's transformation from the morning zoo dj to an afternoon radio guy who iskialngolitics. >> rose: that is also what happened to rush limbaugh s it not? you make the point that there a very distinct diffence betweus rh limbaugh on the one hand and glenn beck on the other. >> i think there is and the
distinction between glenn beck and virtually all of his other peers whether on fox news or in talk radio. >> rose: in which he is the mostuccessful. >> he is second to o'reilly on fox news. he's second or third behind rush limbaugh on radio. but he's more successful in the passion of his followers. so he's got maybe two to three million watching him each day on fox. he's got maybe eight, ten million listening to him each week on the radio. but what makes him fferent is that as you said he is a vement leader. he is not jt a commentator and not just a entertainer although he does post of thosthings very well. actually sees himself now as sort of an unofficialeade of the tea party. he resisted that label but embraced it. >> is what he is and douse awe thentically him whahe has beco or has he created sothin that evenally he may have become. >> it is some of each. it is an unanswerable question.
it could only be answered if you are in some more insight of beck's brain and i have gone many places to do this book. but not -- >> you didn't make it into the brain. >> i did to the get into brain or even have much coming out of the mouth in my direction but we c look circumstance tax evidence. he is a man by his own distribution a liberal. and he was pro-oice, ortion rights. d a long pony tale. and at about the time he decided he wanted to make it big in talk radio, had this nveron. we know that he was comparativy mainstream when he was atnn. in september of 2008 he talked about the tarp bailout program for th banks and said the only problem with this is it is to the big enough and all those weasles in washington know it and of course now this hasecomthe main focus. >> health-care reform and the tarp. >>xactly. >> the bailout. ey view its health-care rerm and the bailout. the two worst things. >> all together as part of the socialism.
>> government takeover. >> right. so you know, we know he's got a great deal of shtick. >>o why do we worry about this. what wrong. the guy has a lot of shtick, an audience that likes him >> i think thatlen becks daerou ani wi expin why. the anti-defamation league s said basically and think this is accurate what he has done is he has taken ideas that are on the fringes of the internet. you know, some of it is far right, talk of nazis and facists,he notion that fema may be operating concentration camps in wyoming. he takes-- . >> rose: that fema may operating conntration camps in wyoming. >> he went on fox and friends one morning and said he was looking into this and cato the debunk the notion that our government is operating concentration camps in wyoming. a month later. >> rose: who is in the concenation camps. >> well, probably people like you, charlie, i don't
kn. but a month later h came back and said okay, we've looked into it. now wean debunk it. t of course it send all the conspiracy theorists going d, you know, for a long piod time. bill o reilly who is i think the most inflammatory peon at fox new before glenn beck ss thank yofor taking the heat off me but his assessment of beck has been telling him, you take things fivtepsfurther than io. and i think that's what has happened with beck. i have been writing about yoanyone want-- ner wt to bme television personality for some crazy thing that one of his followers do. but ere are a l of people out there who said they believe beck is giving them a nod and a wink that it is time to bring violence. >> rose: are you serious. >> absolutely. >> rose: he is not saying athat. >> of course he's not saying that. of course he's not saying that. >> rose: but people who listen say --
>> beck will say, he will lk about bullets in the brain. he will talk about facists, will talk about ses session, a lot violent talk, always qualified like we want a peaceful resolution to this. but he also say tngs like i want youo hear what i am saying in betwn the sentences. there may be a time when i'm not able to say what i wan to but hear me screaming to you in bweenthe sentence. so this, of course s an invitation to the conspiracy th arists who-- theorists who have cited beck. >> but are you-- is your observation that most of the people in the audience are people who are very, very receptive to conspiratorial ideas about i woun't necessarily say most. i mean beck has a very large audience. i'm to the going say that 2 million people watching h every day believe in concentration camps in wyoming. he has passionate following in various areas. first his own mormon
religion. he has a strong following there. he talks a gate deal about end times theology in the richstian faith, has a lot of conservati christian followerwho share that belief. and yes, hedoes have a lot of followers who are very passionate who spend a lot of time on the w looking for theories. >> rose: what will be the impact of the tea party on the midterm elections? >> well, the tea party has all the energy right now. and there are a lot of ople angry in america. but you know, the liberal side is just sort of disi luiged with obama. the tea party has the anger right now. i think there has been this false sort of dichotomy set up. you often hear about the tea party against the republican establishment. i think what has happened basically the republican establishmt has been taken over now by the tea party in large part because they don't want to be seen as opposing it. this works fine because it brings that energy into the republican party.
>> so they support it. >> yes. what choice do they have. so i think they have basically said lk, okay we're surrendering to the tea party or the problems about becos if and when they actually get control in waington and they haveto attempt to govern with the countries teen o'donnells and sharron angle. >>o you ink they will t ntrol in the midterm electis? >>ertaly they ar doing to do very well. my hchs they will gain control of the houseut not the senate i think more important is that whatever happens we're going to see it much tighter, much narrower majority on either side in the congress than we have now. >> and how is this changin the president? >> well, this could benefit the president greatly, i think w this narrow majority or even withhe republicans actually having control. then they are not just 3w078 dollars. then he had are not just in opposition this recoming up with an alternative that obama can contrast himself against. and also hopefully they will
realize they need to govern and strike some deals. i think this could be a terric improvement for obama just because until now the expectations he been that he could do anything he wants. in fact, we now know that that not te. it could be very much like bill clintonafter the 1994 drubbing that he had, assuming that there is, u know, somebody he n negotiate with in this party d it's not all jim demeant and christine o'donnell. >> rose: t tea party from wherev it is coming om and ta about sarah palin and glenn beck, is t prarily about social sues. >> no, i think a lot of them are social conservatives. >> rose: but that's not eir agendaas within no. >> re: if you caned them aboueconic issues versus gay marriage, economic issues would be, have a higher place. yeah, yes or no. >> oh, sure. but mean something changed-- changed wi the llapse of th economy i late 2008.
when republicans are in opposition they send to i think our quite a bit more affective than the democrats are because they are also more harsh than the democrats are and they turn on a me and as you said made the deficit focus of it and basically suggesting, equating that with lge govement and saying the deficit has grown so large because the government is spending too much because it is an attempt to take ov the systemnd what- >> b it gained traction. >> it absolutely did in large part because of men li glenn beck. >> tears of a clown, glenn beck and the tea baing of america, dana pill bank. thank you. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: thank you for joining us. e you next time.